Eternal Vigilance - Price of Freedom

[Gunner3456]

Thanks, that is some very interesting information.
However my argument was made on the basis of things you seem to not take issue with.
I take it your are agreeing with what I said about medicare - cade not being bankrupt?

I don't agree with that. Most of medicaid is paid for by the states and the feds supplement it. Not only are the feds seriously broke, but many states are. There is no money set aside for medicaid in any fund. If the feds and the states are broke, so is medicaid.

There is no money set aside anywhere for medicare (or social security.) It's all been "borrowed" and spent. Therefore, since the feds are seriously broke, so is medicare and social security, right now.

I also take it that you didn't disagree with the statments I made about overhead costs of Medicare - cade compared to private insurance companies.

I don't agree with that. All I see in government is waste and inefficiency. They use fuzzy math to arrive at figures whether it's the current unemployment numbers or their medicare costs.

There is more (admitted by the government) fraud in medicare than you ascribe to "overhead." Private insurance companies are far more diligent about auditing and even requiring pre-approval for services and payments.

The admitted but not caught and prosecuted fraud in medicare is $60 billion per year. Let's get over the idea that the federal government is ever efficient.

The grants and reduced payment programs that you mentioned are not part of overhead, they would be part of operating costs.

Since I have a master's degree in business administration, you won't mind if I'm too stupid to know the difference between "overhead" and "operating costs," will you? Please explain in simple terms for me so that I can grasp this new concept?

I also take it your agreeing that private insurers limit the amount they will allow a provider to charge for a proceedure. It would be good to know how much less care-cade pay for similar services, maybe someday I'll have time to do that research.

Your research won't get you anywhere and I've already told you why. Gov't programs to have a schedule for payment and that's all they pay. It's less than private insurance companies or individuals pay. BUT they also give huge grants to hospitals and you could never parse that out, service for service.

You also have to place into your equation the clear fact that many indigent people get their services for free as payback for accepting the grants. We believe that the federal government, through grants (which they use to gain control, always) and actual payments for care pays more than private insurance companies.

And I guess you can't find the menu for the price of services either, even though there is a menu based on the max the insurers will allow a provider to charge for services.
So, apparently I can't really have that many misconceptions about the scope of my argument.

You are correct that there is a max that all insurance companies will pay for any service whether medicare, medicaid or private. I just don't understand how this makes medicare more efficient than private insurance which as I already mentioned follows and audits payments and the government doesn't. It costs money to do that, but it eliminates most fraud, something the government can't be bothered with.

i really haven't looked deeply into the operating costs of medicare - cade other than the huge figure in the federal budget, to come up with some good relative performance vs. the privates from that complexity would be tough. If I remember last time I took the budget figure and divided it by the number of served people it came out at about $8500 each, or just about what it costs to insure the average person, and that seemed pretty good since they are covering the old and infirm or basically the people no private health care insurance company would cover for a reasonable rate. I wonder if the grants you speak of are in that part of the federal budget.

No they aren't. That pie slice is for actual medical payments and overhead. That's why we don't really know what medicare and medicaid cost. Get this: Canadians, for instance, also have no idea what their "free" health care costs. They have so many taxes that it's a jumble. They pay about twice as much for gasoline as we do, even though they have more than they need and sell a lot to us. The same new Harley Davidson that I can buy here for $20k costs them $30k due to import taxes. It all gets lost and that's the way our governments want it.

Interesting stuff.

Never trust the government. They tell us we're $12-14 trillion in debt when the real number is $100 trillion.

They tell us that social security and medicare will be broke in about ten or twenty years when in fact they've already "borrowed" and spent all of the money and are themselves belly up. In every sense, social security and medicare and medicaid are broke today and we're already borrowing money to pay for it.

 

[Gunner3456]

You need to find out about the dervatives s/b "derivatives" market!

Read my item #4 which is just a knowledgeable description and definition of the derivatives market. You're parroting what the MSM wants you to think.

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/its_the_derivatives.php

Derviates play no role in your description of the fiasco,

See my #4 above. If you understood this at all, you'd see the derivatives market well described there.

with no role assigned to Lehman Brothers or to AIG who was sitting on over 50 billion in derviates that needed to be paid out instantly to avoid bankrupcy after Lehman fell. So, your really not looking at dervatives and the CDS at all in your analysis. The CDS is the real reason that the gov jumped in with TARP to stop the finacials from falling over like dominos. Lehman is also an interesting case, they were so leveraged they were one slight mistep away from falling for years before they did.

See my #4 above.

The lack of government regulation of these financials continues until this day, and even Milton Freidman said he was wrong when he said they didn't need regulation in 1999.

1999 was when Clinton ordered Freddy/Fannie to put the Community Reinvestment Act on steriods, and start really pumping out home loans on easy variable rate terms. Banks were required to make those loans.

Is that the kind of "regulation" you want from government?

This is the progression I see,

Right here you missed it. Back up to Carter's Community Reinvestment Act which went into high gear under Clinton in 1999 with cheap, government backed home loans. These loans were meant to allow even poor people to own a home, but they couldn't afford it and it later caused this crash. (Not blaming any party here - there were plenty of repubs in between this who could have stopped it.)

1. The fed started loaning out dollars for just about no interest after 9/11 to stimulate the economy, something they have done since.

2. Since the fed rate was low government bonds (that finance the defecits) had to be lower, because you really wouldn't want member banks to be able to simply make a profit off of getting money from the fed and buying government bonds with it.

WTF? All banks buy their fed funds from the fed at the Federal Reserve "window." You're messed up about this, man.

3. So, the safe money from all over the world stopped buying gov bonds and started looking for another safe investment.

Oh my.

3. Investment banks started buying mortgages and bundeling them up into huge bonds that the safe money bought as they had good ratings and seemed safe. They also bought credit default swaps on these bonds that insured that the buyer would never loose a dime on them. These CDS's were issued by investment banks who set aside not a penny to cover them in the event of a fall. Other parties, who didn't even own the security were allowed to buy CDS's too and the unregulated marked sold them. This is like buying fire insurance on your neighbors house and is gambling on a scale that makes Vegas an insect. This system cascaded out of control and demanded an unsustainable rate of mortages, with lots of money to be thrown at getting them, and industry responded.

There's some sliver of truth in that.

Then we get to your 2, the Community Investment from 1977 had little impact on this fiasco as it's scope was only in a few urban areas, and not in the countrywide (pun intended) propagation of inflated housing. It just seems like some people have to blame the gov for everything and will hold the Countrywide's, Lehmans, Goldman's, Citi's, AIG's, Washington Mutual's, Watchovia's, BOA's, ENRON's, LTCM's , accountable for nothing. What does get picked on is Freddie Mac that was started by the Gov to compete with Fannie May, as fannie once had a near monopoly on buying mortages from the issuing institutions.

Wow. Banks were forced by law (CRA) to make home loans in decaying inner city areas where the "location" normally would have made it a best banking practice to avoid. This didn't really kick in this way until 1999 - a Clinton edict. However, CRA loans were made all over the country in every area and they caused first the bubble and then inevitably the collapse of the housing market. They generated the mortgages that were primarily being bundled and sold.

The unregulated CDS is the greatest danger to the worlds financial system, it is like an H bomb to the deficts A bomb.

Wow. All I can say is that you are confused. Please start with the CRA, the resulting bubble and the inevitable resulting housing crash. Without the housing crash there wouldn't have been a problem with derivatives and that's what Wall Street was banking on.

Next address the derivatives market and all that surrounds it. It's a separate fraud by different people. GET this. If we had failed (refused) to bail out Wall Street, and we should have, we would already be pulling out of this recession, and some people would be in prison.

You always have to flush the toilet or you don't get rid of the chit, right? If you keep the chit and try to work with it, you wind up in a bigger mess, right?

And please do me a favor? Please learn to spell "mortgages" and "bundling" and "derivatives?" Those words are used so often above that repeatedly tripping over them drives me nuts. Thanks!
.
.

 

[bugeye]

Never trust the government. They tell us we're $12-14 trillion in debt when the real number is $100 trillion.

They tell us that social security and medicare will be broke in about ten or twenty years when in fact they've already "borrowed" and spent all of the money and are themselves belly up. In every sense, social security and medicare and medicaid are broke today and we're already borrowing money to pay for it.

Well by your economics we are all personally in a lot more debt than we think we are, for example if you owe 100K on your house and are making payments then the unfunded mandate will be the $300K your going to actually make in payments, add the cost of all the repairs you will make on it over the years, the insurance and taxes you will pay on it, and while your at it why not add the food you'll eat while you live there, the electricity, water, gas, sewer, telephone, internet, for years to come unitl the very atoms of the house disapate into radiation in about 10 the 99th years costing you only about that same amount of dollars! And this all started when you decided to buy that darn house, if you wouldn't have bought it everything would have free for all eternity!

You and I are people who love to argue, but if I can't get a straight response to 'is Medicare Bankrupt?' then we have no common reality. Based on your analysis of Medicare, the whole world would be in chapter 7. When we toss around complex ideas it is nearly impossible to deliver them without their inherent generalities making them fall to bits, but if you add nitpicking and spinning the details, it is just a big waste of time.

 

[Gunner3456]

They tell us that social security and medicare will be broke in about ten or twenty years when in fact they've already "borrowed" and spent all of the money and are themselves belly up. In every sense, social security and medicare and medicaid are broke today and we're already borrowing money to pay for it.

Well by your economics we are all personally in a lot more debt than we think we are,

You got that right.

You and I are people who love to argue, but if I can't get a straight response to 'is Medicare Bankrupt?' then we have no common reality. Based on your analysis of Medicare, the whole world would be in chapter 7. When we toss around complex ideas it is nearly impossible to deliver them without their inherent generalities making them fall to bits, but if you add nitpicking and spinning the details, it is just a big waste of time.

You got a straight answer to "is medicare bankrupt" above. How much straighter do you need? Our government has no money, is borrowing like idiots, and there is NO money set aside for social security or medicare. It's been spent. It's gone. DC is borrowing every month to pay for it already. The thieves in DC put the money we paid into it into the regular budget every year and spent it. It's a Ponzi scheme. It's a (very soon) time bomb.

Speaking of a waste of time, you just aren't staying with me on this. I'm having to repeat myself too often, and to correct too many misconceptions.

I've done my best to help and I'm finished with this. Have a great day.

 

[bugeye]

Wow. All I can say is that you are confused. Please start with the CRA, the resulting bubble and the inevitable resulting housing crash. Without the housing crash there wouldn't have been a problem with derivatives and that's what Wall Street was banking on.

Next address the derivatives market and all that surrounds it. It's a separate fraud by different people. GET this. If we had failed (refused) to bail out Wall Street, and we should have, we would already be pulling out of this recession, and some people would be in prison.

And please do me a favor? Please learn to spell "mortgages" and "bundling" and "derivatives?" Those words are used so often above that repeatedly tripping over them drives me nuts. Thanks!
.
.

Your number 4 does not even come close to covering it.
I guess Hannity never talks about this stuff, what a surprise, lol.

Sorry about the spelling, I don't spell check and I don't spell well, and this is coupled to typing at the speed of sound.

I find your optimism about the potential recovery of the 'left to their own devices' markets to be amazing, I didn't send an oracle to Delphi, but my estimate would have been recovery in no less than 20 years. I think the DOW would have gone down below 1000, easy, and as the companies fell the bonds would crash and the CDS bills would come due creating more crashes. This is the lesson of letting Lehman Fall, just that one outfit and AIG tumbles and costs about 200 billion just to prop it up, all over the CDS. Since the unregulated free market nature of derivatives has them distributed all over with no disclosure of who is holding what, any estimates of the dominos falling would be highly subjective, but I bet that AIG had some really bright people who decided not to knit the CDS's for reasons of profit, and got caught with a bad bet. If the worlds largest insurance company was dumb enough to take this sucker bet then I just betcha there were thousands of others, who were lucky that the gov saved the entitiy they placed bets on. This is what made the bailouts necessary.

1000 trillion bucks is not chump change!

 

[longcolt]

Think of what GM did to bankrupt itself. It made agreements to pay out generous pensions, even including the continuation of health care insurance. Its retired workers don't even have to use medicare.

However, it didn't fully fund that upcoming liability. The company was growing and they expected to pay for it out of future profits.

When they actually started shrinking in size, and having far fewer active employees, they wound up with more people on the generous retirement program than they had working!

We all know that it was plain news during the "bailout" that GM had $100 billion in unfunded retirement liabilities even though the total stock in the company was worth less than $1 billion!!!!!!

How can someone who's worth less than $1 bil and is losing money ever pay $100 bil in retirement liabilities? Of course they couldn't and we are bailing them out as an alternative to bankruptcy.

Who's going to bail out the US in the next few years as we find ourselves in the same boat that GM did - too many people taking from the system and not enough people paying in?

There is no money set aside for SS, medicare etc. for the retirees who's ranks are about to swell. The money in the "trust fund" has been borrowed and spent. It's all gone and we can't afford to pay it back.

You must remember that you are comparing apples to oranges in your example.

The GM pension program is funded by the company. The workers did not pay into the program and they will draw at least 2/3 rds of their salary at retirement plus full medical care.

Now lets look at social security. I will use myself as an example. I paid into the system via payroll deduction for about 40 years. Its not my fault that the government raided the trust fund that could have grown like the insurance annuity it was supposed to be.

Then at retirement I draw $1,800 per month in benefits, not 2/3rds to 3/4ths of my salary as the GM workers did. A meager $1,800 per month. Try living on that each month when you earned four to five times that monthly amount when employed.

Its only a small stipend to prevent you from starving to death and that was what it was intended to be in the first place. Its not enough to retire on, you cannot live on social security.

Most of the private companies have eliminated their pension and profit sharing plans over the last 30 years or so. Only the very large companies still have them. Other companies have gone to 401K self funded plans which will only be a supplemental amount of money for retirement.

To look at retirees as the problem, in my opinion is very short sighted and avoiding the real issue, which is the salaries and pension paid to Federal, State and Local Union Government workers. They will get full medical and salary at close to 100% at retirement.

When private industry has laid off many, cut wages, eliminated retirement, froze wage increases why is government not participating in budget cuts accross the board to trim their wage costs????? Thats a heck of lot more money to be had than any slam to the retired folks.

Social security has already froze its normal cost of living increases for two years and raised its part "B" insurance premium to retirees.

Don't buy into the Obama proganda machine of attacking the evil retirees and ignoring the real cost of government. Is only an attempt to defect your attention from a much more serious problem.

If the unfunded social security liability is such a big problem then why in Gods name would we want to look at making all medical care to be paid by our government. Can you imagine what the unfunded medical care liability would then become. It would make social security look like pocket change.

 

[Gunner3456]

You must remember that you are comparing apples to oranges in your example.

The GM pension program is funded by the company. The workers did not pay into the program and they will draw at least 2/3 rds of their salary at retirement plus full medical care.

Now lets look at social security. I will use myself as an example. I paid into the system via payroll deduction for about 40 years. Its not my fault that the government raided the trust fund that could have grown like the insurance annuity it was supposed to be.

Then at retirement I draw $1,800 per month in benefits, not 2/3rds to 3/4ths of my salary as the GM workers did. A meager $1,800 per month. Try living on that each month when you earned four to five times that monthly amount when employed.

Its only a small stipend to prevent you from starving to death and that was what it was intended to be in the first place. Its not enough to retire on, you cannot live on social security.

Most of the private companies have eliminated their pension and profit sharing plans over the last 30 years or so. Only the very large companies still have them. Other companies have gone to 401K self funded plans which will only be a supplemental amount of money for retirement.

To look at retirees as the problem, in my opinion is very short sighted and avoiding the real issue, which is the salaries and pension paid to Federal, State and Local Union Government workers. They will get full medical and salary at close to 100% at retirement.

When private industry has laid off many, cut wages, eliminated retirement, froze wage increases why is government not participating in budget cuts accross the board to trim their wage costs????? Thats a heck of lot more money to be had than any slam to the retired folks.

Social security has already froze its normal cost of living increases for two years and raised its part "B" insurance premium to retirees.

Don't buy into the Obama proganda machine of attacking the evil retirees and ignoring the real cost of government. Is only an attempt to defect your attention from a much more serious problem.

If the unfunded social security liability is such a big problem then why in Gods name would we want to look at making all medical care to be paid by our government. Can you imagine what the unfunded medical care liability would then become. It would make social security look like pocket change.

I don't disagree with a single thing you're saying, except that the analogy of GM rings true if neither it nor the US gov't can afford to keep its promises.

It still doesn't change the clear fact that our government is broke, keeps getting more broke, and is borrowing money right now to pay for SS and medicare. Fair or not, those are the facts.

It also doesn't change the clear fact that this borrowing and spending is unsustainable. We WILL go t*ts up at this rate, and then fair or not, there won't be any money to pay out to anybody. It's happened to countries before who did what we're doing.

You're right that the proposed health care would make SS look like pocket change.




Our budget from 2000 into the future, according to our own budget office.

 

[bugeye]

I don't disagree with a single thing you're saying, except that the analogy of GM rings true if neither it nor the US gov't can afford to keep its promises.

It still doesn't change the clear fact that our government is broke, keeps getting more broke, and is borrowing money right now to pay for SS and medicare. Fair or not, those are the facts.

It also doesn't change the clear fact that this borrowing and spending is unsustainable. We WILL go t*ts up at this rate, and then fair or not, there won't be any money to pay out to anybody. It's happened to countries before who did what we're doing.

You're right that the proposed health care would make SS look like pocket change.




Our budget from 2000 into the future, according to our own budget office.

If you get your charts from right wing think tanks then this is the kind of sensationalist nonsense you get.

This is the report from the CBO

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-Outlook.pdf

Page 15 has the defict projections and these are a small percentage of what the Heritage foundations bogus chart shows. It's PDF so I can't cut and paste it but

2013 is -413 billion, 2018 is -342 billion, or back to Bush type deficts.

Getting your info from right wing think tanks is good if you want to both uninformed and brainwashed. What sort of voodoo they did toarrive at the numbers on that chart and then say they came for the CBO I can only guess. I do respect Herritage not to really lie about it, as they are way too clever for that, but I bet they added in total costs for every potential program that the current admin has considered and the CBO has done estimates on, so they can say it is from the CBO and that it is projected. YOu have to admire the line too as it looks like Obama to the right and Bush to the left, but 2009 is Bush's last budget as the gov's fiscal year starts in September.

 

[bugeye]

You got a straight answer to "is medicare bankrupt" above. How much straighter do you need? Our government has no money, is borrowing like idiots, and there is NO money set aside for social security or medicare. It's been spent. It's gone. DC is borrowing every month to pay for it already. The thieves in DC put the money we paid into it into the regular budget every year and spent it. It's a Ponzi scheme. It's a (very soon) time bomb.

Speaking of a waste of time, you just aren't staying with me on this. I'm having to repeat myself too often, and to correct too many misconceptions.

I've done my best to help and I'm finished with this. Have a great day.

Well, I guess some people have a very strange idea of a straight answer! If you asked me I would simply say the truth, that Medicare isn't Bankrupt as it is currently meeting it's obligations, and has not acquired the legal status of being bankrupt.

"
A debtor that, upon voluntary petition or one invoked by the debtor's creditors, is judged legally insolvent. The debtor's remaining property is then administered for the creditors or is distributed among them.
"

 

[Gunner3456]

If you get your charts from right wing think tanks then this is the kind of sensationalist nonsense you get.

This is the report from the CBO

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-Outlook.pdf

Page 15 has the defict projections and these are a small percentage of what the Heritage foundations bogus chart shows. It's PDF so I can't cut and paste it but

2013 is -413 billion, 2018 is -342 billion, or back to Bush type deficts.

Getting your info from right wing think tanks is good if you want to both uninformed and brainwashed. What sort of voodoo they did toarrive at the numbers on that chart and then say they came for the CBO I can only guess. I do respect Herritage not to really lie about it, as they are way too clever for that, but I bet they added in total costs for every potential program that the current admin has considered and the CBO has done estimates on, so they can say it is from the CBO and that it is projected. YOu have to admire the line too as it looks like Obama to the right and Bush to the left, but 2009 is Bush's last budget as the gov's fiscal year starts in September.

You should be careful where you get your nonsense. Bush never had a budget. Congress makes up the budget. We've had a Pelosi/Reed budget for the past three years. The congress which Obama was a member of put together the budgets for FY 2008, FY 2009, FY 2010 and FY 2011!!

Obama voted for those budgets as a dem. congressman!!!!!!! All the way back to at least the 2008 budget!!!!! Now he (and you) complain that they are "Bushes" budgets!!!!!

Obama and the dems complain that they "inherited" these deficits when Obama as a senator and congress were the ones who put them together.

Obama was the POTUS who signed the omnibus spending bill for 2009 because congress held it over for him. He actually voted for it as a senator and then signed it as POTUS!!!!

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending.

I'll save you the trouble. Yes, Obama voted yes on those so-called "Bush" budgets and not just "present." Now he blames Bush as recently as yesterday in a televised speech!!!

Friggin hypocrites.

Go back to school.

 

[slideglider]

The US dollar is not money. It has no value behind it except that people choose to accept it. It is DEBT. Go read THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND. A good course on money through the ages and the creation of the FED. Also see this for the ideological drive behind world collectivism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN_LYk1nDEY

G. Edward Griffin speech.
(PS. Try to get past the grey hair knitting in front)

 

[bugeye]

You should be careful where you get your nonsense. Bush never had a budget. Congress makes up the budget. We've had a Pelosi/Reed budget for the past three years. The congress which Obama was a member of put together the budgets for FY 2008, FY 2009, FY 2010 and FY 2011!!

Obama voted for those budgets as a dem. congressman!!!!!!! All the way back to at least the 2008 budget!!!!! Now he (and you) complain that they are "Bushes" budgets!!!!!

Obama and the dems complain that they "inherited" these deficits when Obama as a senator and congress were the ones who put them together.

Obama was the POTUS who signed the omnibus spending bill for 2009 because congress held it over for him. He actually voted for it as a senator and then signed it as POTUS!!!!

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending.

I'll save you the trouble. Yes, Obama voted yes on those so-called "Bush" budgets and not just "present." Now he blames Bush as recently as yesterday in a televised speech!!!

Friggin hypocrites.

Go back to school.

So your going to give Obama 1/657th of the repsonsiblity, wow! But your right it is congress budget. I only brought it up to show how nicely that think tank chart you posted split on the top, I believe I understand their intention just fine, and the bogus figures prove it even more.

I'd love to go back to school, though my present level of education seems more than adequate to school you.

 

[Gunner3456]

So your going to give Obama 1/657th of the repsonsiblity, wow! But your right it is congress budget. I only brought it up to show how nicely that think tank chart you posted split on the top, I believe I understand their intention just fine, and the bogus figures prove it even more.

I'd love to go back to school, though my present level of education seems more than adequate to school you.

Today is the 1 year anniversary of Obama's Porkulus package. You know, the one where he promised that if passed would keep unemployment from going above 8%? The one that had to be passed so quickly that congress didn't get a chance to fully read it? The one that after he pressed congress to pass so quickly, he then flew off to Denver for four days and didn't get around to signing it?

You know, the bill that put us about $800 billion further in debt and all for nothing except pork to pass around and buy votes and favors with?

You know, the one that we had to borrow the money for, and that our grand kids will still be trying to pay for?

You know - that Porkulus package?

That part of our unmanageable debt and spending?

 

[nixuser]

<broken link removed>

 

[nixuser]

a must see a real eye opener !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=-T1Chh1unLI&v=UlcYpgfI564

 

[bugeye]

a must see a real eye opener !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=-T1Chh1unLI&v=UlcYpgfI564

Ten minutes of a trailer, I cut off after 1, in the future if you'd please watch it and tell us what it says to spare us the dramatic music and graphic images, and I love the history channel, lol.

Was it about anarchy heading our way?

 

[bugeye]

Today is the 1 year anniversary of Obama's Porkulus package. You know, the one where he promised that if passed would keep unemployment from going above 8&#37;? The one that had to be passed so quickly that congress didn't get a chance to fully read it? The one that after he pressed congress to pass so quickly, he then flew off to Denver for four days and didn't get around to signing it?

You know, the bill that put us about $800 billion further in debt and all for nothing except pork to pass around and buy votes and favors with?

You know, the one that we had to borrow the money for, and that our grand kids will still be trying to pay for?

You know - that Porkulus package?

That part of our unmanageable debt and spending?

I watched a few minutes of Sustern Fox last night, she fed soft serve questions about the stimulus to McCain and Rove showing the fair and balanced approach to 'dispensing objectivity' to the faithful. I could have stayed tuned for more but my BS alarm was ringing off the hook after three minutes.

So, where is your control group earth where tarp and stimulus weren't done so you can show scientifically the full absurdity of these vast wastes of dough? Ah, this fails to exist so what we have here is complaining about these programs while not really being able to evaluate how bad things would be without them. And to make some sort of factual argument they divide the amount of money spent by the number of jobs created and get a huge cost per job, but since many oif these are infrastructure and construction jobs (shovel ready projects) and materials cost lots more than labor, this calculatiion is no surprise, but what the heck WE don't call ourselves Fair and Balanced for nothing!

Now why didn't Gretta ask these Republicans how sitting on their arses, complaining, and doing nothing for political gain is actually doing the duty of representing their constituents?

 

[Gunner3456]

I watched a few minutes of Sustern Fox last night, she fed soft serve questions about the stimulus to McCain and Rove showing the fair and balanced approach to 'dispensing objectivity' to the faithful. I could have stayed tuned for more but my BS alarm was ringing off the hook after three minutes.

So, where is your control group earth where tarp and stimulus weren't done so you can show scientifically the full absurdity of these vast wastes of dough? Ah, this fails to exist so what we have here is complaining about these programs while not really being able to evaluate how bad things would be without them. And to make some sort of factual argument they divide the amount of money spent by the number of jobs created and get a huge cost per job, but since many oif these are infrastructure and construction jobs (shovel ready projects) and materials cost lots more than labor, this calculatiion is no surprise, but what the heck WE don't call ourselves Fair and Balanced for nothing!

Now why didn't Gretta ask these Republicans how sitting on their arses, omplaining, and doing nothing for political gain is actually doing the duty of representing their constituents?

First, let me remind you that I don't like or trust either the Democrats or the Republicans. IMHO they've all sold out to personal power and are entangled in the DC mess. None of them is interested in our basic constitutional rights as a first priority. None of them understands the founding principles of this country including states' rights. None of them understands our right to a small and constitutionally limited federal government.

You won't get me to engage in which is better. GET this. Obama is president, the democrats are now in charge, so they are now accountable for what's happened, or what hasn't happened, this past year in the White House, and for what's happened the past three years in congress. For that reason alone, they are the current target.

I don't care for Bush or McCain.

If you want to simply talk about what's happening in our government right now, especially this last year without the unreasonable and unproductive complaints about what happened in the past or the useless "well he's worse or he's better" or "he did it first or worse" then go for it. It doesn't interest me.

We need to deal with the problems we have right now and they are huge. The deficits and debt will swallow us. We are going to tank. We are going to crash. We've gone over the edge. There is no economic recovery right now. Unemployment and the economy are far worse than the current administration promised they would be "if" we did that stimulus package. That's just a fact.

The stimulus package was a complete failure not just because it failed, but because it put us more than $800 billion farther into debt. Now they want another stimulus package, but because the first one was a failure they don't call it stimulus package II. They call it a "jobs bill." Typical spin...

All our government knows how to do now is to borrow and spend and print paper money. Don't try that at home because it will bankrupt you. You can't borrow and spend yourself out of financial trouble at home or in a business and we all know it, but somehow people think the government can. Is that stupid or what?

The important question is: "Are you ready?"

 

[Gunner3456]

I watched a few minutes of Sustern Fox last night, she fed soft serve questions about the stimulus to McCain and Rove showing the fair and balanced approach to 'dispensing objectivity' to the faithful. I could have stayed tuned for more but my BS alarm was ringing off the hook after three minutes.

So, where is your control group earth where tarp and stimulus weren't done so you can show scientifically the full absurdity of these vast wastes of dough? Ah, this fails to exist so what we have here is complaining about these programs while not really being able to evaluate how bad things would be without them. And to make some sort of factual argument they divide the amount of money spent by the number of jobs created and get a huge cost per job, but since many oif these are infrastructure and construction jobs (shovel ready projects) and materials cost lots more than labor, this calculatiion is no surprise, but what the heck WE don't call ourselves Fair and Balanced for nothing!

Now why didn't Gretta ask these Republicans how sitting on their arses, complaining, and doing nothing for political gain is actually doing the duty of representing their constituents?

Man, any time the government manages money there is stupidity and waste. You should know that by now. That's either party, for at least the past 100 years.

Take just this one example. There's a huge utility-scale wind farm being built in Texas. It's funded largely by "stimulus money" and it's supposed to create jobs. Well, most of the jobs are foreign jobs.

So, when they state the cost per American job, it's not hard to see why each US job costs so much.

1.) The stands are being made in Canada, creating 500 Canadian jobs.
2.) The blades are being made in Europe even though we have two blade manufacturers in the US who are laying people off. This is creating 700 jobs in Europe.
3.) The heads (generators) are being made in China even though they could be made in the US, And CHINA is overseeing the construction on site in Texas! This is creating 2,500 jobs in China!

The number of US jobs created? 400.

So is it hard to see the waste as far as creating US jobs? Is it hard to see why the cost per US job is so high on this project? More than $1 bil is spent, and 400 jobs are created, and many of them are temporary until the project is completed!!

The sad thing is that wind power isn't economically viable. If it were, private capital would rush to it. It would be the new "gold rush." But it's a loser so the government (that's you and me) pays for it!!!!!!!!

Were you consulted before they spent your money and your grand kids' money on this debacle?

Here's just one link to get you started about this project. It's Senator Charles Schumer's web site. Understand that he's a liberal Democrat and chairman of the Senate Rules Committee and even HE'S upset about it. Link

You can't give money to the government and expect them to use it wisely. They will instead use it to buy votes in their own districts, no matter what party they are. I doubt if Schumer would be so upset if this was being done in his district.

 

[2506]

The US dollar is not money. It has no value behind it except that people choose to accept it. It is DEBT. Go read THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND. A good course on money through the ages and the creation of the FED. Also see this for the ideological drive behind world collectivism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN_LYk1nDEY

G. Edward Griffin speech.
(PS. Try to get past the grey hair knitting in front)

That's true of anything, and pretty much the layperson's definition of what value is: people choose to accept it. Gold is only worth something because people choose to accept it as rare and valuable. Diamonds are rare because their supply is tightly controlled. Pre-lock Smiths are valuable becuase some people think the post-lock guns aren't as reliable. You can pick anything and some people will consider it valuable.